we will talk about relations between the us and afghanistan and the afghan president's visit to washington this week. urnal" is next. >> good morning and welcome to "washington journal." it is tuesday, january 83 u.s. banks agreed to pay out more than $20 billion in two settlements arising from the mortgage crisis. at the supreme court, justices turned with a challenge to president obama's policies on government-funded stem cell research and the court also scheduled oral arguments in two gay marriage cases for march. president obama nominated former nebraska republican chuck hagel to head up the defense department and john brennan to

take over at the cia. hamid karzai is coming to washington later this week, the headlines this morning about president obama's foreign policy agenda for 2013 -- we want to hear from you -- what are the challenges in 2013 on the foreign-policy front? the numbers are on your screen. send us a tweet or post your comments on facebook. also send us an e-mail. we are getting your reaction today to the nominations put out by the white house yesterday. president obama had a news conference to put forth chuck hegel as well as the john

brennan. to head the cia. also, there are the headlines in the newspapers of syria, iran, peace in the middle east, etc so we want to get your take -- what to you think of foreign policy issues in 2013? here is some comments on our facebook page -- what is your take on this? we will get to your comments in a minute.

the front page of "the washington post "- here is the front page of the huffington post this morning --

these are all the headlines in the huffington post this morning. about the nomination of chuck hagel for that position. the financial times this morning -- >> we go to missouri, a

democratic caller -- caller: i am loving it. i am glad that obama picked chuck hagel. it is about time we got a real american hero that does not have to be vetted by cowards like lindsay gramm and the apac crowd. why doesn't he moved to israel and joined the knesset because many of us don't feel like he feels about israel and their politicians should not have to be vetted by a coward like lieberman or lindsey graham. host: why are you calling them a coward? caller: it is all about israel to these clowns and i am sick of it. we give these people $3 billion per year and all they do is give us guff. that is why. host: we are taking your phone

calls this morning. about foreign policy challenges in 2013. this is the opening section of "usa today" -

>there are other stories in noting that the former senator, chuck hagel, when he was in office, approved about $38 billion in aid for the jewish state along with multiple trips to beat -- to meet with leaders there. that is a little bit of background on chuck hagel. david, indianapolis, democratic caller -- caller: good morning. i wanted to comment on the changes in the foreign policy that we will see. i agree with the last speaker, i believe the israelis need to be rained down. these guys used hawks, they

elect hawks to take over their government and they are hardliners who will not bend when it comes to the palestinians or other middle eastern countries. we need someone to let them know that it is time to make a change in how they relate to the countries around them so that we can have peace in the middle east. there will not be a way as long as they consistently say that they will retaliate against anything that happens. host: two phone calls about israel -- this is "the baltimore sun" --

we will hear from joyce in lincoln, neb., a republican caller -- caller: i am very interested in the former senator chuck hagel getting in. i had an opportunity to work closely with him and another congressman in lincoln, neb. in the gulf war and the last war. one thing the former senator said that caught my attention was that he is not a clock, if he is an owl. i think read where -- i think we really need a neutral position to look at this situation and get us out of the political arena.

i watched a program earlier on c-span and it was all men from the different colleges and departments of war and peace and i think it is sad because they think we need more women in the picture. there is so much a done that women have done that i have been watching lately on tv. there is not a bullet fired and the two women that started the organization, lost husbands in 9/11 went over and met with with those from afghanistan. it had a tremendous impact. i was invited to numerous meals with people who were lost and our city. i listened to them talk.

one of them asked what do i think? i said i think we're down to two choices -- our children will inherit the choices. i am all for peace. i think there is more one way to do it and i support what the soldiers have done host: this is the headline in "the washington post" -- caller: absolutely. host: what do you think that means for foreign policy challenges? caller: we hear about going to war in iran and i think diplomacy is a big deal. it should not be discarded so lightly. i think chuck hagel was right when he said before we send our

soldiers there, let it be the last resort. i have found the dialogue sitting at the table with men, it was some iraqi women to, when i sit down with the man, it is incredible the dialogue to change that discussion. do you want your children dodging bullets? many people look at energy and the consumption of our metal resources. this is important. it is not binding. -- unending. host: joseph ramirez adds this to the conversation -- the white house said the

president will meet with hamid karzai on friday. josh ragan is on the phone with us to give us more details about these nominations. let's begin with the nomination of chuck hagel, why? guest: president obama has long been a friend of chuck hagel and they knew each other since 2007 when they served on the foreign relations committee. they traveled to iraq together in 2008 when president obama was just a candidate they have a similar war of view and agree on a lot of these issues. chuck hagel has been serving as president obama's intel is advisory board co-chair, they get along and obama can put someone in the office that agrees with him. he has a great personal relationship with him. host: what about the confirmation process? what is it looking like right

now? articles are saying that there are about 10 senators who will oppose him. guest: i would not trust any vote counts for it would just have the nomination yesterday and most senators will not commit to supporting or opposing chuck hagel before he has been nominated or before they have had a chance to properly vet that nomination. we know that there are about five senators who promised to vote no his nomination and they are all republicans which is ironic. he was a republican in the senate but the party has moved away from his more centrist approach to foreign policy. there is no telling whether the five senators will grow into an opposition that would be enough to scuttle his nomination. the white house is betting that it will not. they are prepared to put political capital behind this nomination. usually when they do that, they can get their nomination for the

process and we will wait to see if that is enough. host: we heard from senator john mccain. what did he have to say? guest: he is being cautious. he is concerned with some of the things that chuck hagel has said and done, especially regarding the israeli-iraq issues but he is not committing to opposing the nomination. john mccain had previously said that chuck hagel is a close personal friend, they are both vietnam veterans and served together in the senate and they do know each other and there is a level of camaraderie and respect. i don't think john mccain and knows what he will do. i think the hearings for chuck hagel and the vetting process in congress and the media will have a big impact on the final results. host: we are asking our viewers this morning to tell us what they think are the foreign policy challenges in 2013.

if chuck hagel were to get that spot, what does he face? guest: he will face a range of foreign policy challenges. it is almost unprecedented -- we are talking about a military that is tired and worn out after 10 years of war, facing fiscal challenges, and austerity that is unprecedented in american politics which brings pressure on all the budget that secretary hagel have to be in charge of. we're talking of instability in the middle east and north africa which is getting worse and worse including libya and egypt and syria and pakistan. we are talking about a world that is changing and is less responsive to u.s. pressure and u.s. military power and diplomacy.

that changes something that chuck hagel is aware of and he has well-formed views on. at the heart of that view is that power should be diffused away from the american military and plates and other power centers around the world and that idea itself is controversial. president obama agrees with that and many in congress do not. host: the former senator gave an interview with his former state paper, "the lincoln journal star" he said his critics have distorted his views. guest: it is unusual for a to give any interviews at all but he has faced a much criticism that he wanted to get one opening salvo out there and that is what he did. he basically said that he will have a chance to correct the record during his confirmation hearing.

we should note from that interview that he is not backing down from any of his positions. he is not saying he no longer believes in the things that he believed in that were so controversial. he just says they are misrepresented. he is doubling down on those positions so that will make the confirmation fight even more interesting to watch. host: what about john brennan? guest: david petraeus resigned in disgrace after being revealed to have had an affair with his biographer. it left a vacancy that needed to be filled and president obama looked around and found the intelligence adviser he was closest to. john brennan has worked close to president obama antitrust him and he likes him and john brennan has been crucial in all the secret counter terror missions that the cia has been

doing around the world including the expense of drone program. this seems like the perfect choice for obama to get his body in there and someone who was in the middle of the secret stuck the cia is already doing. host: what are the issues that critics would have with john brennan? guest: he is the architect and defender of the legal justification for going into other countries and killing people, even sometimes americans, through a process that is not transparent like the rdrones. that is one thing -- the other thing is that the role of the cia is just not well understood. that'll be something that will

be covered in these confirmation hearings. host: 4 john brennan, what are his foreign policy challenges? are they the same as those that defense secretary chuck hagel would face if he is confirmed? guest: largely but the cia will be focused on places like yemen and libya. u.s. attack -- the terrorist attack on the u.s. mission in benghazi was largely an attack on the cia installation. they are little bit more focused on the counter-terrorism missions. they are a little bit more focused on certain countries rather than others. largely, they are facing a more diverse world with more on known threats -- people they are fighting are not wearing uniforms and marching in

line. they are either doing terrorist attacks or doing cyber attacks which are even more difficult to find. host: thank you very much for your time. we will be talking with jane harmon coming up here at about 7:45 eastern time. we will dig into what the cia faces in 2013. what are the foreign policy challenges in 2013 -- that is the question for all of you this morning. we will get your phone calls by want to show you what president obama had to say yesterday when

he put forth the nomination of former republican senator, chuck hagel. [video clip] >> chuck represents the bipartisan attitude we need in washington. he has earned the respect of national security and military leaders, republicans and democrats, including me. i came to admire his courage in the senate, his willingness to speak his mind even if it was not popular or it defied the conventional wisdom. that is exactly the spirit of one on my national security team -- recognition that when it comes to the defense of our country, we are not democrats or republicans, we are americans. each of us has a responsibility to be guided not by the interest of our party or our president, even, but by the interest of our country. host: president obama yesterday when he nominated chuck hegel

to head up the defense department. he said we should not be trusting the papers about the vote count quite yet. we will see how the confirmation process shakeout. the president put forth john brennan, a close adviser and friend of his, a counter- terrorism adviser, for heading up the cia. here is what he had to say about john brennan. [video clip]journ >> he has strong analytic inside and keen understanding of the dynamics. given his extensive experience and troubles which include traveling through the arabian peninsula where he can't with tribesmen in the desert, john

has an indictable perspective on the culture and politics and economics, the desire for human dignity, driving some much changes in today's world. host: the critics of john brennan like senator john mccain who is the ranking republican on the senate armed services committee put out the statement yesterday about the domination of john brennan -- he plans to examine the nomination very closely. talking about foreign policy for 2013 amid these nominations put out by the obama administration yesterday, this

is from twitter -- robert, barry ville, va., caller: good morning. what are your thoughts on foreign policy in 2013? the immediate focus should be on rejecting the nomination of senator hagel. i am a strong democrat and have been all my life and a strong supporter of president obama. i think his domestic policies are what this nation needs. his foreign policies, up to this time, have been affected. -- effected. to choose a secretary of defense that is soft on hezbollah, soft on hamas, and soft on iran, i think that is destructive of the foreign policy of the united

states and destructive of this country's historic alliance with their strongest middle east ally, israel. host: why did you call them -- what you call him socks? others call him neutral. caller: when he says you should talk with hamas, a terrorist regime, that officially is classified as a terrorist organization by the united states, when he proposes to engage with hamas, that as being soft on terrorism. when he refuses to take a position against hezbollah, as he did, i say that as being soft on hezbollah, which is also a well-recognized terrorist organization. i say he is soft on iran, the positions he has taken have been positions that would undermine our attempts to prevent iran

from obtaining nuclear weapons. host: less mature -- let me get your reaction to the opinion section of "usa today" -- caller: i think obama paused val has to be carried out. i think he should have a secretary of defense who is not taking a contrary position. host: other challenges ahead for the defense secretary, whoever that may be -- this is "u.s. aid today" --

jason, in brooklyn, democratic caller -- onlewhat are your thoughts challenges in the foreign-policy arena for 2013? caller: i think president obama made a great choice with chuck hagel. as a democrat and realistic american, we focus on israel to much. in three years, we will see one world government and it will probably be better for the world. host: scott, urbana, ohio, republican caller -- caller: i believe that chuck

hagel is to neutral to be in a position against the secretary of state and the decisions that have to be made. i think he will be a danger to america because he does not have a strong policy against hamas and i think we are in need of someone who will stand up to them. host: ok, in other news -- this is "the new york post" --

here is "the daily news" with this political cartoon, showing hillary clinton wearing a helmet. and former senator chuck hagel wearing a helmet. also, from "the washington times" -- it doesn't give a date but congress is out for the next couple of weeks. she has said the issue will be testifying about that report before she stepped down. scott -- deborah, in buffalo in the york, independent caller -- caller: i have some comments about chuck hagel, i think he is a good choice. i think he would think about getting into a war without just doing them. i think he is a good choice,

thank you very much hos. host: here is more facebook comments -- facebook.com/cspan, if you want to post your comments. we were able to get a speech sunday by president bashar al-

asad. [video clip] >> i would like to assure everybody as far as fighting terrorism, we will not stop fighting terrorism as long as we have a single terrorist in syria. this does not mean that we are not going to listen to fight terrorism. this is the first point. [applause] host: that was the president of syria in a speech he gave to his supporters. in "the washington post" -- if you want to see more of that speech, go to our website, c-

span.org. you can see more of it there. that could be one of the foreign policy challenges in 2013. we are getting your take on that this morning and from yesterday's "wall street journal" -- that is another issue. there was this story in "the washington post" -- these are supposed to be more stringent sanctions against that country. they note that the country's financial difficulties have increased.

doreen, hamden, conn., independent caller -- caller: thank you for cspan. i agree with the president. i think is joyces were excellent. he knows what he is doing and we put him in office because he knows what he is doing and i don't think we should make a jump to judgment before we know what the person is capable of doing. they have already been on the business for over 25 years. i don't think the president would pick someone who does not know what they are doing or is incapable of doing the job. host: are you referring to john brennan? caller: yes. host: where do you see foreign policy challenges in 2013?

caller: i think we will focus more on ourselves than with foreign policy. unless there is a big war and we have to get involved, if we don't have to get involved, i don't see us stepping into a h a hole, as such. i think we will focus on ourselves and foreign-policy is one of our concerns but i don't think it will be our main concern. we have so many things going on at home. host: what about syria? caller: that is a land in turmoil on its own. there is no way we can fix was going on there. they have been going through this for over a century. we will not just go in and fix it. it cannot be fixed and we have to come to that realization. we can work with them to help them try to achieve a better lifestyle. as far as fixing them, i don't believe they will be able to do that with foreign policy. they have a whole different way

of living than what america has. host: this is from "the baltimore sun" -- alexandria, virginia, republican caller -- caller: good morning, i think we do put a disproportionate focus and attention to the middle east as a whole. if you look at what we get in return, investment in time and efforts, you can -- from

northern africa and even across to pakistan, what are real -- what are we really getting in return except for security? economically, these nations without gas and oil, they produce nothing. their human rights abuses are off the chart. i don't think this is a winning proposition. we are not getting anything in return so it does not release serve u.s. interests. host: tom annapolis, independent caller -- caller: good morning, i think a lot of the callers seemed to be militant jewish people who think we should go to fight iran but the former head of mossad and the former head of shinbet, the

two israeli cia organizations, are opposed to attacking iran. they think we should talk with them, too. i just don't understand these people who are taking the word of prime minister netanyahu i think is a very dangerous man. only got 42% of the vote in the last election. i think many decent people in israel disagree with him and don't want -- host: the way you made that sound as if only jewish militant people -- there are non-jewish people who are opposed to senator hegel. caller: i know, but they are wrong. as far as dealing with hamas, israel dealt with hamas to get back one soldier. they released 400 soldiers -- prisoners to get back one soldiers so why can't we deal with hamas?

host: are getting your take on foreign policy challenges in 2013. first, "business insider" as reporting -- you can go to c-span.org for all of our programming schedules and if you are interested in what we are covered in washington. in other news this morning -- here is "the washington post" --

on a lighter note -- this is from yahoo news - we are taking your calls this morning on foreign policy challenges in 2013. you could also send your comments to our twitter page. also, post your comments on our facebook page. or you can send us an e-mail. "the pittsburgh post gazette" this front-page story --

that is the story in many of the papers this morning. also, "the houston chronicle" --

carl, virginia beach, independent caller -- caller: good morning. i want to call and say that i do support the president's appointment of senator chuck hagel. don't cut me off because it seems you are uncomfortable when we talk about the fact that many folks talk about israel and then getting special treatment when it comes to dealing with them like we do with any other country. i think senator hagel'ups one that puts him in the middle where he is not a democrat or republican and he is not leaning specifically toward israel.

we have got to start giving israel not so much special treatment and space -- and step up and be a fair superpower. why does israel get such special treatment? host: why do you think they get special treatment? caller: because of the aid money and anytime that speaks out against israel, there is always a backlash. israel, is like any other country. host: jacksonville, fla., democratic caller -- caller: good morning, i think the president made a great choice in selecting charles haeel. we should wait and see what comes out of this. let the president do his job. every time he does something,

we'll jump on him. why is that? why can't you let our president be the president? host: up next, we'll take a closer look at john brennan's nomination to head the cia and what is next for that agency with former congresswoman, jane harmon. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> i think that collectiveization of the minds of america's founding fathers is particularly dangerous because

they were not a together unit and presenting them as such tends to dramatically oversimplified the politics of the founding generation. it comes to be used as a big better gramm to beat people over the head. i think it is historically incoherent. >> michael austin on what he calls the deep historical floors by conservative commentators and their use of america's founding history. he shares his views on book-tv's after words, sunday night at 9:00 p.m.. on c-span 2. >> i enjoy the capitol hill coverage. i started their many decades ago. i like the live coverage of the house and senate and the committee hearings. i think there are informative.

like the way cspan covers the fact that it presents itself as to what is really happening with some, but not really edited. it is just what they want to present to the american people. >> cspan, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. host: we are back with former congresswoman withharmon. -- jane harmon. let's begin with the pick of john brennan. why do you think the president chose him? what does this job entail? guest: he has been in the catbird seat for four years. he was going to be the pick four years ago and his name was withdrawn at the last minute.

as the guy in the white house, he managed our counter-terrorism program. he worked well with president obama. he is the guy obama trust most and this is a sensitive post at a very sensitive time. i think it is an extremely good appointment. host: what does the job entailed? guest: the director of the cia is different than what was before 2004. in 2004, four of us in congress, led the fight for intelligent reform and we've restructured our intelligence committee after the bad intelligence on iraq to have a joint commander. person is called the director of national intelligence. the current one is james clapper, a former three-star military man from the pentagon. under him are 16 intelligence agencies and the cia is one of

those before that, the director of central intelligence had nominally have the coordination role. now, the cia is one of 16 but it is our primary spy agency. its role under the reorganization has become even more crucial. if you have seen "zero dark thirty," it shows the central the cia played in identifying the career and once we identified him, we found the house in about a block and then we found osama bin laden. host: senator john mccain said he wants to take a closer look at the interrogation policies of the bush administration and john brennan's involvement in that. guest: i applaud with john

mccain said about interrogation. he has been saying for ever that torture does not work and he should know. he was in the hanoi hilton for so long and tortured by north vietnam during the war. he is right, in my view. i did serve on the intelligence committee for eight years. i was there in the 1990's and came back and was a ranking member. i think we should look at interrogation policies and look at detention policies and we should look at drone policies. before this nomination, john brennan asked to come to the wilson center which i now head, he asked to comment talk about the legal framework around drone policy. it should not be our foreign policy. it is a tool but many of our tools should be developed through prom -- diplomacy and soft power and john brennan

understands this. one thing i hope he will do after he is confirmed, and i predict he will be, is take a fresh look at the cia mission, reduce the paramilitary part of that mission, that should be offloaded mostly to the pentagon with the exception of an intelligence function. arrest of the things the cia does should be more conditional -- the rest of the things the seat a dutch to be more conditional. host: are you talking about drones? guest: the cia has a huge role in our use of drones. it follows very careful legal steps. some can disagree and i disagree with portions of it but what i am saying is the role of the cia in executing drawn missions should be reduced. i think drawn missions over time to be reduced. the pentagon to be the place where military and paramilitary

activities are launched and directed. the intel peace can happen at cia, at the operation of drones, it should move out of the cia and move to the pentagon. host: who makes the colonnade drone attack? guest: ultimately the president does. these are highly secret missions. a lot of the preparation happens at a lower level and the call about whether to use a drone in a particular strike happens a level below the president. i believe it is classified. host: what about foreign policy challenges in 2013 for john brennan if he become cia director? guest: the cia is not a foreign policy role. what the director and the agency is supposed to do is speak truth to power, collect information,

predict information about the future. it is not a scientific agency. it is an analytic agency and they predicted agency so that policymakers can make the best decisions, something i used to say is that good intel will not guarantee right policy decision of a bad intel is more likely to feed a wrong policy. host: are talking with jane harman. former member of the intelligence committee. the phone numbers are on your screen. we will get to your phone calls in a minute but i want to get your reaction to what john brennan had to say when he came to the microphone yesterday about talking with congress. [video clip] >> while the intelligence profession demands of secrecy, it is critically important that

there be a full and open discourse on intelligence matters with the appropriate elected representatives of the american people. although i consider myself neither republican nor a democrat, very much look forward to working closely with those on both sides of the aisle. host: what did you hear there? guest: i heard a very important statement. during my eight years on the house intelligence committee, i was frustrated often by the lack of full information from our intelligence community to congress. congress is an independent branch of government. we are the ones who authorized legislation and appropriate funds and we need full information to do that adequately. we did not get it especially in the first half of the bush administration. we did get some information. i was in the so-called gang of eight.

there was enormous frustration. with the amount of information we got. john brennan understands that has to be corrected. it has improved over recent years. i think the current members of the house and senate intelligence committees will find a good partner in john brennan. going forward, if he decides to restore the cia mission to a more robust, non-power military mission, he will need the collaboration of congress. host: how so? guest: i don't know what he would propose but i think we need a new legal framework for these post-9/11 world. we have pieces of policies that

are cobbled together -- the foreign intelligence surveillance act was updated, the patriot act is highly controversial and that was passed after 9/11 and has been amended since and some parts expire and some don't and it all sort of works but there is still serious issues about detention and interrogation policies. i strongly agree with john mccain about that there are other issues about how we do the intelligence mission now. we don't have enemies to wear uniforms, who attacked us in some symmetrical fashion on battlefields in nation states. we have rogue actors to act across borders. we have cyber attacks. have a series of different challenges. i think we need a new framework and i think john brennan, my guess is, will want to look at that. i have been a member of the cia

and external board. if i continue in that position, i would want to contribute to a group that would try to think ahead on that. maybe it will need more legislation and john brennan would work closely with congress to get that host: here is your first phone call from chicago. just touched on 2009 and it was controversial to have john brennan as cia director because he supported rendition and drones which were part of the radical bush administration programs that the democrats criticized at that time. now, obama has institutionalized of those programs. i am very concerned because there is no dissent on those issues. i have another question for you -- guest: the precise circumstances

of john brennan's withdrawal -- i don't know them. i think they will come out in the confirmation hearings. the charges against him, some of them, from what i recall -- i think were not completely fair. you just heard me say that i think we need a clear legal framework around interrogation. congress has already banned torture which is something i supported and voted for. i think we could do an even better job there. as far as rendition, my understanding is that we don't do renditions. there was an article that i read recently in "the washington post" talked about the practice that i did not think conform to the old version of renditions. if there are things going on that can be discussed publicly about this subject, i'm sure

they will be brought up in the confirmation hearings and it occurs to me that there may be a classified portion to those hearings. i don't know but i hope you will agree that some aspects of our intelligence mission must remain classified because sources and methods can be compromised. i think the legislative committees have a right to know about those things. in the right way. i think putting all that in our newspapers and on the airwaves can get people killed and we have to be very careful. host: from twitter -- guest: i don't know. i think he is a capable man and has been the acting director. i interacted with him in my role as a member of the external committee of the cia. i think he was very gracious yester day when john brennan was nominated. that is not an easy thing to go

through. i don't know what his position was on john brennan has been senior to him in the obama administration. he has the president's absolute trust. he is a very talented cia -- host: what you think the impact has been on the cia? guest: david petraeus is a genuine american hero. i do not condone what he did. the president had the right to except his nominate -- resignation. having anyone leave abruptly causes dislocation in an institution. he stepped into the shoes of the director and i think manage

things very well. a lot of the policies started by david petraeus will be continued. one is to take a look at women in the cia. there was a committee that david petraeus started and it was under way when he resigned. host: that brings up a headline in "the washington post." guest: as i said numerous times, care of it is a women's issue. we are lioness -- security is a women's issue. we are well qualified to sit and any policy table anywhere. many women are.

nobody missed the groundswell for the secretary of defense. there are lots of qualified women. four women head the 16 intelligence agencies now. there has never been a woman as head of the cia. i do not see a bear that a woman cannot meet or overcome -- i do not see a barrier that a woman cannot meet or overcome. host: your name was floated for the post. guest: very flattering. john brennan is an obvious pick and i support him. i do not know how my name was put out there.

i hope to play a role and support as we look at our intelligence mission and if he asks me as head of the nonpartisan wilson center, which focuses on aligning scholarships and policy. we are in a good position to marshal expertise. host: intelligence policy is our topic this morning. democrats, 202-585-3880. republicans, 202-585-3881. independents, 202-585-3882. james has been waiting. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is a strong delight to see you looking marvelous as ever.

guest: you are just great, james. caller: i followed you i never it house hearing you participated in. you were just marvelous. there is no limit to your honesty. i am a proud vietnam veteran. i served when chuck hagel and his brother were there. what is it you can see that causes such a rift with the republicans went a democrat chooses a republican such as mr. chuck hagel. he has so much significant qualifications and knowledge of congress. that is the key thing.

guest: i guess we'll see what the objections to a hagel are. i think hagel is a sound choice. i think the president has every right to nominate chuck hagel for this position. some statements he has made in the past need to be aired. my guess is that he will be confirmed by a large margin in the senate. the secretary of defense does not make foreign policy. the secretary of defense plays the primary role of bringing our defense department to bear to the service of the president.

most people believe his qualifications are sound. he was a decorated hero, enlisted man in the vietnam war. there never has been an enlisted man like him as secretary of defense. the issues he is going to confront our budgetary issues thehow well we can fund pentagon and how we can cut back on certain aspects of the budget. that will be very tough. i agree with chuck hagel there are some things we can cut. we need to cut with a scalpel and not a sledgehammer. the threats against us are serious.

we need to cut the legacy systems and put in more limited amount of funds in the right places so we can protect our country. host: we will talk about the pentagon budget and what they faced with these spending cuts as well as the secretary of defense chuck hagel and his thoughts about the pentagon. bobbie is next, republican caller. are you with us? caller: good morning. i like to welcome the guest. thank you for the opportunity.

your guest was in a legal turmoil about representing, was scored on a wiretap with two agents that were caught spying on america. that is all i have to say. guest: that was report it six years ago and reported again in 2009. it was a political smear. i have it in writing that i was never the target of any investigation. unfortunately, these days people who do not wish you full success are able to make charges and sometimes those charges have a shelf life.

if you haven't brought it up, i would guess nobody else would have remembered it. the opportunity to respond to you. host: this comes from twitter. guest: the answer to that is yes. if they fit the definition of covert action, they have to be disclosed to the so-called gang of eight. the gang of eight is the leaders of congress, minority and majority leader's. i was in that group from 2003-

2006, which was a turbulent period for us. this letter was declassified. i wrote a letter commenting on so-called enhanced interrogation techniques in which i was briefed and asking the general counsel to the cia for what was the policy guidance that he had when we were all very scared about the future of the country. i told the cia not to destroy any videotapes that i had heard had made of these techniques. the videotapes were destroyed. host: hi, dan. caller: hi.

in regards to some terminology that she has used several times this morning. legal framework. that sounds kind of vague. i wonder if jane can be a little more specific about what she means. as the law is constructed, are there some restraints that she does not like that she would like to see changes? i do not know why she wants a new legal framework. maybe so different agencies can interact differently. guest: thank you for that question. i have been a little vague.

our constitution provides that in order to surveil a person, an american, you need an individualized warrent. otherwise you're doing and unconstitutional search seizure.r if we intercept messages are get meta data, what and perhaps some of those involved communications, what are the

obligations to make sure we know if it is an american and that we have the right permissions if we go further. that was what congress struggled with when it amended the surveillance act in few years ago. i think we got it pretty much right. we have a system. idata is ok. communicationsu are different. i would like all the policies to hang together -- how we detain people and learn about their communications with other people, how long we can preserve

data is another issue. policy has been changed to lengthen it. i think that could use more public scrutiny. put it all together. this is the 21st century version of a set of u.s. laws that comply with our constitution that we can explain to the world. why is all this important? the way we will win against this challenge of terror is to win the argument. one of our values is abiding by the rule of law. we have to be able to explain our laws. doing this will help us conduct

ourselves better and will help us win the argument with others who may try to blow up themselves and innocent people, or whether they should join society and may be hope for a better world. host: tj on twitter says -- hillary clinton will testify about this before she steps down from that post. guest: i think the senate has every right to demand -- to expect people to testify about what they know a lot lessons they are learning from this.

it was a horrible tragedy. there is no such thing as 100% security. some diplomats will be in harm's way from time to time. nobody is defending the policies we had around benghazi. hillary clinton looked great yesterday. she looked well. i think she will testify. we will learn what she knew and what she thinks. the state department's has taken a set of corrective steps. we will do better in the future. host: were showing pictures of

her meeting yesterday when she received a helmet from her staff and a football jersey with the number 112, the number of countries she has visited. guest: it is astounding. punishing schedule. no sleep. eating on airlines. not enough exercise. are you listening to me? host: thank you for waiting. caller: how john brennan plan don meeting the perceived asian tilt. how the ca plans on tackling that -- how the cia plans on tackling that.

guest: the cia does not make foreign policy. to focus on a failed state where we have reason to believe that a loss of terror organizations are training. these are important things to do. the cia's role is to provide intelligence on these parts of the world and not to make policy. i'm betting that too much of our intelligence is tackle. it is focused on who is coming over the next hill in the battlefield. most of our intel assets into afghanistan and iraq.

it is a good idea to restore some of our focus in other parts of the world, including asia. as a former policy maker, i would hope this rebalance toward asia will not focus on how we make relationships with china and others more difficult. i would hope it would help to join in the region to create a larger trading relationship and to better understand ways in which we can become close friends with china. i think that will be in everybody's interest and gives us information about leadership changes. better information about other

trends will be better and more congruent. host: we have about 10 minutes left with jane harman. now the director of the wilson center. linda from new york is next. caller: good morning. questionthree-par andt for jane. changes would you like to see made to our constitution? guest: i'm not recommending any . i would like the equal rights amendment at some time. host: are you there?

caller: what should be the response of americans to the supreme court justice ginsburg's ripping of the constitution saying it is old and no longer relevant? should he be removed from the bench? guest: i'm not sure i understand that. ruth bader ginsburg is a conscientious woman. if you are talking about the egyptian constitution, that is up to them. there are some issues about that constitution. some of that phrasing is vague. i'm interested in the transition. i have urged both sides to

improve their political skills so they can deal with each other better and make some compromise. i would offer that same advice to the united states congress. caller: you did not answer my question and you took a lot of time sidelining my question. which begun about ginsburg's prepping of our constitution to the egyptians? she said it is old and no longer relevant. guest: i misunderstood your question. byon't recall that statement ruth getter ginsberg -- ruth ginsberg.n spurrruth

times the constitution is interpreted in ways i do not agree with. her comments were of a more generalized nature, so be it. i am surprised to hear her say we should rip up the constitution. i think our constitution is an impressive document. host: this is from twitter. guest: dod does execute some drone strikes. there are two statutes. they work more or less together . operate this way. we have had a cia director who

became the secretary of defense. we had a military leader in defense who became cia director. it is time to take a look. this is an easy policy change. look at what the cia has become . the paramilitary missions of the cia should be reduced substantially. the drone function become much more centered in the department of defense. the cia go ahead to a more varied mission calls on some of its old traditions -- he mince pies -- human spies, taking longer looks around the world.

john brennan asked to come to the wilson center and talk about legal limits around our drone program. he has said a drone-centric farm policy is not effective. i agree with that. we need other tools. diplomacy is crucial which needs to bidding amped up. host: our producer found this story about justice ginsberg. excerpts from an interview that she had done. she calls the u.s. constitution -- she says we have the oldest constitution in the world. she says she might look at the

constitution of south africa if you were drafting a constitution in 2012. guest: oh. host: hi, ralph. question or comment? caller: question has to do with the multiplicity of the intelligence agencies that we have in the united states. think there are 11 or 13 of them. it seems to be ridiculous. the idea of the dni and relegating the cia to second place. does.t sure what the dni it seems to be duplication.

nobody seems to be talking about these centers. they are hiring legions of people and we do not know what they are doing. nothing is said about it. guest: we have a lot of intelligence agencies. our intelligence leading up to the war in iraq was bad and it was bad for a variety of reasons. we had a source we never directly interviewed. there were clues in the fbi. the fbi did not talk to the cia. we came up with a model that fixed the pentagon.

the pentagon used to have the services staffing and fighting separate wars. they would equip themselves separately. we decided to do what the military did. a joint command was created. he can come from any military service. they now trained and equipped to gather. the dni is the joint commander across 16 intel agencies. he leverage is their strength to produce intel products. that is the backbone of how we

get intelligence to policy makers and that has dramatically improved. on the fusion centers, that is a different thing. those are local centers that have gone up to serve local law enforcement. they pull together national intelligence streams that they get from the homeland security department or the fbi with streams of local intelligence and a share it. the homelands department has tried to insist on privacy in these agencies and provide some financial support. this is a work in progress. some of them worked very well. one in los angeles works very well.

other communities, maybe not so good. we will work on that. host: a final question for you. do you think john brennan gets confirmed? guest: i think they both should be confirmed. surely john kerry. i think they should be asked vigorous questions in their confirmation hearings. that is the prerogative of the senate. this is a democracy. some people will vote against them. the president should be entitled to his nominees. he is our president and was elected by a substantial margin. these are qualified people.

after they are subjected to scrutiny, it will be able to explain themselves and serve our country well. we can assemble a good amount of series focused and the like to help or offer to succeed in the next four years. host: might you consider a post in the second obama administration? guest: i am happy with the job that i have. if asked to continue to serve, i will continue to serve. host: thank you so much for spending some time. we'll take a look at the year ahead for the pentagon and the looming budget cuts. then we will turn our attention

to afghanistan. but first a news update. >> more reaction to the nominations made yesterday. a spokesman from i ran said the country is hopeful the appointment of chuck hagel to lead the pentagon would improve relations between tehran and the united states. there are hopeful there would be practical changes to u.s. foreign policy and that nations which change their attitude toward the united states if it respected the rights. chuck hagel has been criticized by some as being hostile to israel and soft on iran. iranian militants stormed the u.s. military and took american diplomats hostage.

gun control is to focus of meetings this week at the white house. gun owners groups and widukind representatives will be welcome to the white house to discuss policy proposals for curbing gun violence. president obama has ordered a task force to send in proposals by the end of this month. the group was formed in response to the massacre at a connecticut and elementary school. more on guns. initiative aimed at curbing gun violence in the wake of the town, gs in new connecticut. there was an op-ed written today by gabrielle giffords and mark kelly.

they visited newtown, connecticut, last week or the shooting took place. an update on the attack of the u.s. consulate in benghazi last fall. lawyer says his client has been freed conditionally because of lack of evidence. he was the only suspect in custody over the attack that killed christopher stevens and three other americans. is lawyer said he was freed last night. he has to remain in the area in case the court needs him. hillary clinton says she will testify on the report on that attack before congress. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio.

[video clip] >> i think that collectivization of the minds of america's founding fathers is particularly dangerous because they were not a collective unit and presenting them as such tends to dramatically oversimplify the politics of the founding generation. it comes to be used as a big battering ram to beat people over the head with in ways that i think it are historically incoherent and retorically unsound. >> english professor michael austin on what he calls the deep historical flaws by conservative commentators and their use of america's founding history. he shares his views on book tv's "after words," sunday at 9:00 p.m. and midnight eastern on c-span2. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: we are back with frank oliveri from "congressional quarterly." this is your piece about the nomination of chuck hagel. you note chuck hagel has a long record of being hawkish. guest: he has voted against every bill. he voted to support spending bills across the board during the bush administration. he has backed the administration on some pretty tough nominations. he is a guy that's has stood out. michael bolton -- john bolten, pardon me.

host: it is one of those mornings. guest: he stood pretty hawkish y some of those. host: what has been his record on the defense budget? guest: he used the term lo bloated. there is some concern in some sectors of the republican party. some believe there are places in the defense budget that need to be tightened up. there is a believe there's not enough money in defense and perhaps we should not be cutting at all. there was an effort to head this nomination off to begin with.

he will go to confirmation hearings. the american people can judge. host: what is up first for the pentagon? guest: they got through a tough defense authorization bill. that sets policy. they have been reducing spending. this was part of the budget control act. host: is that plan set? guest: after 2013, they will have more discretion as to how cuts will be applied. there is still the threat of sequester. they gave themselves about two months to try to find the kind of savings that would avert a

sequester. their caps that are set in law that say how much you can spend on defense. host: the defense authorization bill had authorized a budget of $633 billion for defense. $80 billion for the afghanistan war. does that address those cuts that have to be made? guest: the bill set aside what would happen to the overseas contingency operations fund, the war funding. the overseas funding does fall. but those numbers are expected to climb. it was $158 billion or so for

that. we're on a glide path out of afghanistan so those numbers will decline. host: to know what chuck hagel has said about sequestration? guest: i think he thinks sequestration is bad. his comments were more broad. "it is bloated." there are republicans who view there are errors. there is a lot of growth in spending. plenty of programs that are out of control. there is money in the defense department that can be saved.

host: on the large equipment, what is being eyed? guest: a combat ship is a navy program. it is a small type ships. the missions are somewhat modeuddled. they are having difficulty making that work. the f-35 program is a fighter program that has bhad difficulties and cost overruns. even after adjusting budgets, they are still having difficulty getting that plane. host: this comes from twitter.

guest: the defense budget -- we cannot necessarily shape the defense department'. and many ways we do not know where the threats are going to be. affordability drives a lot of what you do on defense. if the defense department promises to deliver a weapons system at a cost and then delivers the at 100% more of cost, you can see how the budget begin to break. host: this comes from c-span junky. guest: that is probably true. this is a 10-year budget. the out years of the place where

all of our dreams come true. a decision can be reversed at anytime by congress. some of these numbers are reflecting what our budget trends are. host: what is it looking like for the hagel nomination? guest: it looks like he will get his hearing. a lot will depend on what he says in the hearing. if he says things that people are concerned about and underlines them, and comments about cutting the defense budget really will matter going forward. and of the comments about israel. comments about gays and israel.

lesbians. espy has never been viewed as an extreme diguy. host: we are talking with frank oliveri about the nomination of chuck hagel and the pentagon's budget. democrats, 202-585-3880. republicans, 202-585-3881. independents and all others, 202-585-3882. you can send us a tweet, twitter.com/cspanwj. we will get to your comments and your questions in just a minute. ?ho are chuck hagel's allies guest: you will have some key democrats weighing in his favor.

harry reid will be strong for him. democrats will be strong for him. you will see a broad brush of democrats. the new ranking member is a pretty hard-core conservative and put out a statement that was moderate in tone, say we want to hear what he has to say. there are a few number of cases were a senator nominated for a cabinet post has not been confirmed. john tower, to mi comes to mind. host: this is from "usa today," talking about the israel and iran comments.

host: is it 10 democrats that could oppose? guest: democrats are concerned about his comments on eight people. they want to hear him out. i did not see any democrats to draw a line in the sand about chuck hagel.

i suspect they will align with the president on this and vote for him. i think on the ambassador rice, people were tossing her name around as secretary of state and few democrats were willing to take the heat for her. host: the president of afghanistan is coming to the united states and meeting with the president on friday. guest: the interest is to quicken the pace of the drawdown. it's time to move more quickly on afghanistan. the president wants to draw down more quickly. carl levin has argued to

increase the pace. we are looking at some point in 2014. he is pretty aligned with the president's position. host: vicky, good morning. caller: i watched your show every morning. i don't approve of hagel. i know what war does to people. he is against a lot of things. i do not understand why so many people think hagel is so great. host: are you concerned that because chuck hagel is a vietnam vet that he would be more inclined to go to war?

caller: yes. guest: there is a history of powerful lawmakers that were effective leaders in wartime that were warriors themselves. daniel inouye lost his arm in combat. nobody would view him as not hawkish on defense. there are a host of combat veterans. i do not think being a combat veteran should disqualify you. combat tends to draw the cream to the top. people in combat have experienced things that other people have not. who view that as a disqualification is outside the mainstream. host: what does that mean for

the rank-and-file? guest: i think it sends a message that this guy is like them. here is a person that started as an enlisted person in the military. it sends a message that he will care about the average soldier. he will think about -- a man who was been in combat will be more questioning and less willing to rush into war when diplomacy becomes tough. that is a view that permeates our society. host: built in chicago -- bill iln chicago. caller: i agree with everything

your guest just said about hagel. he brings a different perspective. i do not understand why there are those who think israel should have something to say about an american president's appointment. host: you don't think israel should have something to say? caller: i don't think israel should have anything to say. host: nate in woodbridge, virginia. caller: i have no problem with chuck hagel should be the defense secretary. i think his background in the military is helpful. he knows what it is to be in war and the price the soldiers

have to pay. we have always been in support of israel. do they do for their foreign policy to us? no. we have to do what is best for us. we need to have somebody in there that will prudently cut back on military spending. it is easy for these war hawks to say, go do this or did go do that. support these soldiers when they come back from war. i think he would be a good choice because of his background. host: 1 topic is veterans and what role chuck hagel have. guest: he has a role in setting

policy. we have somebody who heads up the veterans administration. there are things he will impact. things like retiree benefits that will be under the microscope as we pay a great deal of money into retiree benefits. these are people who have served 20, 30 years in the military and were promised health care later in life. there is a question to the level of fees. the administration was looking to increase fees under the tricare system. the fees increases -- there has not been an increase since the

mid 1990's. host: has the israeli government weighed in on the nomination of chuck hagel? guest: what we're talking about is a lobbying -- a group of interest groups that are pro israel that have expressed concerns about chuck hagel. the government of israel has not weighed in. that would be an odd per call violation -- protocol violation . host: this is from "the baltimore sun."

host: about the comments on that, this is from "the wall street journal" about the comments that chuck hagel as made that his critics have been referencing. this is from "the wall street journal." host: richard cohen weighs in in his piece in "the washington post."

host: rebecca in ohio. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. how well is he being vetting? i have watched him on tv. he is anti-semitic. i am concerned that the government does nothing for the american people. they don't have to participate in the obamacare. but they are making decisions

for lives. what is theng -- regard for the american military from chuck hagel? host: what have you been watching from the former senator? caller: i watch on fox news and msnbc. it isn't just for secretary of defense. he has been a senator for a lot of years. he is not new on this page. host: her comments about how he views men and women in the military. guest: he was a prominent member on the senate foreign relations committee.

i struggle with people who throw around terms saying he is anti- semitic. i do not know if most people would be comfortable saying that about chuck hagel. i think the term jewish lobby, a is a phrase he used in a quotation, use pretty extensively. people use the term jewish lobby and israeli lobby. israel refers to itself as a jewish state. if you read israeli newspapers, they use this type of .erminology as well t i think there are groups that were concerned about him. elliott abrams ran an article

yesterday that said his opposition to any uso, an organization that provides support for u.s. troops, a u.s. facility in haifa and that his opposition to that was somehow anti-semitic. we expect them to pay a great deal for the bases there. asking for israel to pay for some of our facilities is not an unreasonable request. it is a bit of their reach to the beyond that and say it is an anti-semitic statement. this is part of the heightened intense rhetoric. some of the more extreme

language will find its way out of the debate. it remains to be seen. people remained passionate. a lot depends on where people get their information. host: jodi on twitter. and then barked bush says no democrats are eligible to be secretary of defense? guest: you have republicans pointing to democrats secretaries of defense, at east in recent administrations. sure there are people out there among the democrats who could have been considered. there were people on the final was two were democrats.

at the end of the day, the president selects who he is comfortable with. and chuck heigl is an adviser to the president and the president knows him from his time on the senate foreign relations committee. he tends to appoint people he knows and is comfortable with. host: we will go next to nebraska. republican collar. caller: i want to make a couple of comments about john keiko, the president's choice in nominating him. i think he would be an excellent choice. first of all, i think he is an independent thinker. it is the united states first. and i appreciate his point of view. and the fact that in nominating him. i think he the right and left both oppose him --

you know, the extreme right and the extreme left -- tells me that he is probably espada dashon nomination. and he has served honorably -- he is probably a spot-on nomination. he is someone who served honorably in vietnam. he received awards. host: two purple hearts, is that what you meant? caller: yes, he was decorated. i think he is a -- an excellent choice. host: we will go to illinois. caller: some of you folks do not understand the code words being used by anti-semites. jewish lobby, that is a code word. let's grow up a little bit. mayor ed koch throughout an editorial him about obama is tht israel in the back and he thought he would. chuck heigl is no friend of israel. whether he is anti-semitic in his heart, i do not know. i'm saying that as a christian.

do not accuse me of being the so-called jewish lobby. there is a good web site called chuckheihagel.com that has a lot of interesting information. i served in vietnam and that does not qualify me to be the position either. going back to charles freedman, louis farrakhan, reverend wright, this is obama's m.o.. he is no friend of the jewish people. host: cory in louisiana, your next. -- you are next. caller: i would like to thank you for taking my call. i do not understand that every time the president tried to do something, the republicans are trying to block him.

he tried to nominate and they did not even give her a chance. he cannot do anything. they're blocking him. host: is there politics going on here? guest: yes, there is definitely politics going on. by the way, the previous caller made a caller madehagel's vietnam service. it does not necessarily qualify him, but it does not disqualify him each year. the previous caller said that it should disqualify him. i want to be clear on that. on national-security issues, the neocon wing of the republican party, there is a power struggle going on within the republican party itself on national- security issues. there are fiscal conservative republicans, the tea party group, or more isolationist.

there are the more moderate republicans, and then there are the neocon republicans, who tend to believe a much broader view of the world where they view american power as something that should be fostered and protected. and they believe american power is good for the world. that is the viewpoint. the administration has taken a much more pragmatic view on policy. they're less dogmatic on some of these issues, and the neocons are concerned about that. they will risk some appointments that they feel are perhaps a little more left-leaning than they would like. chuck hagel is what you would say is more of a pragmatist on policy. uofr natural differences there. with ambassador rice -- you will find natural differences there. with ambassador rights, she was never nominated.

there was talk that she was being considered, but she was never nominated. and i think what they're trying to do ahead of time -- and this is a political tactic to of these try to disqualify some pee from getting a nomination. in the case of rice, there was an argument that they've made her not nominate a ball. in the case of chuck hagel, to a certain degree it is apparent that he was nominatable and there will be some discussion as to whether he is the right guy for the job. we will see how that plays out. 54 host: merc senator is confirmed -- host: if the former senator is confirmed by the pentagon -- is confirmed, do you think there will be some shake up at the pentagon? guest: i do not think you'll see a huge turnover. there will be people leaving

public service. there are people who will change over positions, but i do not believe that chuck hagel would step in and heads would roll, necessarily. it is fairly common in the second administration for people to stay on or move on. i think it would depend. i do not think there will be this flight from the pentagon. it is tough to get people confirmed into these roles and once they have them there, they like to hold onto them, unless they are not performing up to snuff. i do not know of any cases where people are said to of not been doing their jobs. host: what is next for iraq? guest: for iraq? well, they are acting on their own at this point. they are in a difficult situation in that they border iran and syria.

there are tough relationships with iran with the sunni and the shiites, and the north with the kurds. that is a particularly difficult situation in the country because they sit on some pretty intense oil reserves. and they have their own military troops in the north in kurdistan. there are in for a very tough growth period. hopefully, it remains a democracy. host: is there some u.s. military presence there? guest: we have sold the military equipment and believe we provide some very low-key military training for the weapons systems and things that we're providing. and some state department officials, but it is a pretty low profile place for us. host: lee in indiana, a democratic collar. caller: good morning.

burt republicans are against everything obama -- republicans are against everything obama has done. everything that is done right now has to be run by the extreme right wing. if obama had nominated christ, there would be some question about that, too. the obama has his hands full going forward. anything he tries to do is going to be questioned, regardless how suitable or more qualified the individual might be. that is my comment. host: thanks for the comment. go ahead.

guest: i would differ a little bit on that, because the president has nominated john kerry and he is broadly viewed as not christ. he has broad support on capitol hill. there are some concerns and whether those concerns are legitimate or not, they are concerned. some people will boys them. the democrats when the bush administration was appointing a number of bush-era appointees, john bolten in particular from the un, he was someone who said that if you blew up the top 10 floors of the un, no one would notice it and then he was made an ambassador of the un. there were many it -- there were many democrats who had issue with that. it has become very partisan. you'll see challenges to the nominations from time to time.

host: and another comment on twitter. guest: he is working at the pleasure of the president of the united states. if he has a different viewpoint, he can certainly express that. there was a book out on the lincoln administration that delved into having different opinions. one of the views expressed by democrats and some republicans is that there was too much of this bubble thinking where everybody was thinking the same things and they did not have contrary voices, or were not receptive to contrary voices. whether that is accurate or not, the fact of the moderates, it is good to have a mix of opinions in the room to get these things out. these are enormous national securities -- national security concerns. they affect many people's lives. they set off a litany of things that are not necessarily

foreseeable, as we found out in iraq and afghanistan. it is good to have all different kinds of opinions speaking to the president. host: we will go to ruby, virginia beach. independent color. caller: ehrlich -- independent caller. caller: earlier, you were talking about paying for defense. i agree we need to pay for defense. there's already been a billion out of defense. and with the sequestered coming up, they have taken more out of the military. they have cut them equally, which means another billion dollars. host: hang on the line. i will have frank oliveri to clarify what is happening with the pentagon, and then we will come back to you. guest: in pure numbers sense, you have seen a real cut in

defense that is on the order of tens of billions of dollars over the last three or four years. what we are talking about our reductions in the growth of defense budget, planned growth of defense budget over the next 10 years. $487 billion, technically speaking, is a reduction to plant growth. these budgets do not currently exist. the defense department's as we will grow at a certain rate. the goal was to cut defense for a certain level, and then over the next 10 years, show a measured growth level of something like 1% over a 10-year timeframe. but the reductions in numbers that we're talking about, these are out your dollars. they do not currently exist -- these are out-year dollars. they do not currently exist. all of these are cut in growth of defense spending. in the budget control act, congress had to fight $1.2

trillion in federal savings over 10 years. that committee set up to do that fail to do that. as a result, it triggered the need to go to sequester. congress recently took the steps to avert a fiscal cliff. in it, they found enough money to put off sequestered for roughly 60 days. now congress has to figure out how to achieve the kinds of savings they need to get for the sequester across the board in 2013, so that does not hit. we are already in fiscal 2013. fiscal 2013 ends on october 1. that is where we are right now. what we're talking about our cuts to projected growth. host: ruby, are you still there? caller: that is a little bit

player, but i can still not understand why 18% roughly is what we spent on military budget and 84% is what we spend on those other programs. host: frank oliveri? guest: to put the numbers into perspective -- and i hate to do this because it is all apples and oranges. there is such a thing as mandatory spending and then there is discretionary spending. congress represents more than 50% of discretionary spending today. it is a few billion dollars that we anticipate spending on domestic stuff in discretionary. again, this is stuff that congress can control every spen. mandatory spending goes into things like health care and other expenses that they do not mess around with a year to year budget. what we're talking about are the cuts that they're looking for that will involve both those pots, mandatory and discretionary. but right now in the discretionary part, congress

controls a bit more than 50%. host: frank oliveri with the congressional quarterly. thank you very much. guest: my pleasure. host: coming up, we'll turn our attention to afghanistan and that president's visit this week. but first, a news update from c- span radio. >> more reaction to shock hagel's nomination. -- hagel's nation. there are issues on which i have disagreed with him, such as the 2007 surge in iraq, he is a man of complete integrity and deep patriotism. he is also the president's choice. the country and our men and

women in uniform would be well served by his swift confirmation. those are the words of former defense secretary robert gates. pakistani officials say several american drones have fired missiles at a compound near the afghan border, can build -- killing at least eight suspected militants. the compound here today said it -- officials said the country and d compound hit today was located in the north was there is an area. -- waziristan area. it is a controversial program in the region. a u.s. official said an unarmed drone found said it was launched from the uss jfe in september of last year. the philippine navy deployed a ship with experts after a diver and fisherman found the drone over the weekend and reported may have been a bomb. it sparked concerns because u.s. troops are allowed to engage in exercises with local troops, but

legally barred from engaging in combat operations in the country. officials have been assured that the drum was neither arm to, nor used for surveillance. those are the headlines from c- span radio. was located in >> i think that the collective ization of mines of the founding fathers is dangerous because as i see in the book, they were not collected thinkers. during that tends to directly oversimplify the politics of the founding generation. it comes to be used as a big battering ram to beat people over the head with in ways that i think are both his starkly incoherent, and rhetorically unsound. >> in english professor michael austin on what he calls the deep historical flaws by conservative commentators in our use of

america's founding history. he shares his view it spawned tv's afterwards sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome to our table retired lieutenant colonel john nagl talking about u.s.- afghanistan relations and the president of afghanistan coming to washington, meeting with the president on fighter -- on friday. why is he coming to washington and what is on the agenda? guest: we are in a very important. in the u.s.-afghanistan in relationship. we are thinking about the long- term relationship of the united states and afghanistan and what that is. to be cured by the end of 2014, the american combat role in afghanistan will come to an end. afghanistan will continue to need american economic and

development help for probably at least a decade to come, probably much longer. president karzai is here to talk to president obama about what the nature and shape of that relationship will be over the long term. host: here is the headline from the "washington post" yesterday. guest: president karzai is in some ways a typical man. he has -- it has to be noted that he is responsible for the toughest job in the world. he has been president of afghanistan for eight years. in 2014, his two terms will come to an end. he has struggled with a country that has seen 30 consecutive years of war. he has struggled to develop the economy in his country. he does not have all the power that he would like to have. president karzai it's tough to work but sometimes, but he is who we have.

he is our partner in afghanistan. i always feel compelled to point out when people complain about him that he always consistently pulls about 60% approval ratings among the amount -- among the afghan people. any american politician would be thrilled to have that. host: he is coming to washington saying it is the u.s. that is fomenting corruption in our country. those in washington are saying there is corruption in the afghan government. guest: andy there is a certain element of truth to both. -- and there is a certain element of truth to both. it is true that foreign banks are enriching the coffers of the afghan leaders. there is no doubt about that. but it is also true that our assistance to afghanistan has not been as smart as it could

have been and we have not received a return on investment in a lot of cases. host: explain how it works and what changes. guest: a lot of the that we sent to afghanistan doug -- goes through u.s. organizations and a lot of the money that we spend goes through u.s. expatriates and workers who receive western level salaries to organize and oversee these development projects. in some cases, that is absolutely necessary. the afghan electrical engineers simply do not have the skill set required to make the power generation projects work. they need to pay some of that money to foreigners to help them along. but president karzai is going to ask for more of that money to be funneled directly through to the afghan government. he believes they can receive a better return on investment by doing the contract themselves that allowing the u.s. government three u.s. agencies.

host: we are showing this to our viewers with a graphic. the dark green indicates the amount of u.s. aid assistance that is channeled through their core budget. in 2010 it made up a little bit more and it has over the years compared to previous years. but still, the majority of the money is not going through their core budget cu. guest: that is correct. the intent is for over time, the u.s. to do exactly what president karzai is asking for, for more of the aid to go directly to the afghan government to be distributed by them. part of the reason we have taken a different tack is that the afghan government has simply not have the expertise within itself to oversee those programs. that expertise is developing and corruption is going down not nearly as quickly as we would like it too. host: by the way, this graphic

is in the billions of dollars. and just to note, in 2010, that figure almost reaching $3.5 billion at the height of our aid to afghanistan. you can see that coming down. why is that? guest: frankly, our attention to interest an effort in afghanistan has peaked and we're on a downward slope. that is true portraits as well as aid and economic and international development -- that is true for the troops as well as aid and economic and international development and it will continue to go down. i expect that we're going to see a perpetual a budget -- aid budget somewhere in the area of $2.5 billion in the economic system and somewhere between

$4,000,000,000.5000000000 dollars for them to continue to fight -- between $4 billion and $5 billion for them to be due to by the taliban. we will see a dramatic increase -- a decrease of american dollars and soldiers being sent to afghanistan over the next several years. $4,000,000,000.5000000000 dollars for them to continue to host: but you said earlier that aid will continue for at least 10 years. guest: i hope and expect that it will continue for the next 10 years. we should probably talk about where that is a good idea. afghanistan and pakistan, that nexus, the tribal border region there that is poorly defined and poured a controlled is perhaps the most dangerous place in the world to the united states. it is where al qaeda and began. it is where the remnants of al qaeda still exists. there was a draw on strike reported within the last 24 hours against terrorists in that region. babalu remain a threat in that

area for the force -- that is an area that will remain a threat for the foreseeable future. we can conduct drones strikes, gather intelligence, continue to keep an eye on that area, stabilize it and influence the direction it goes, because that is the part of the world that puts the united states most at risk. host: a sovereignty issue for pakistan, but also, karzai is expected to bring up sovereignty issues for afghanistan. what will he be saying? guest: president karzai correctly feels that he does not have control of what is going on inside his country. special operations, conducting raids inside afghanistan late at night without necessarily afghan permission kamari and the afghans not necessarily always knowing that is going to happen -- afghan permission, or not necessarily the afghans always doing is quite to happen.

the legal challenge to the american presence in afghanistan is a very important and contentious one. the negotiations led to the decision not to stage any u.s. troops in iraq after the end of the u.s. combat mission there. it is unlikely that will happen again. both president karzai and president obama want american troops to stay in afghanistan 2015 and beyond, but exactly how that is going to happen and what regulations will govern their presence and conduct is a point of contention between the two leaders. talking to a non- resident senior fellow at the -- senior fellow talking about afghanistan. we will take your questions. the numbers are on the screen. here is a tweet from the oversight of gop.

can you explain the structure of the afghanistan government? how has it improved -- can it be improved? how does it compare to iraq? guest: that is an enormous question. afghanistan has strong regional governors who are appointed by the president. it is not dissimilar to the u.s., where state governors have a great deal of power. the question among those who study afghanistan and have looked at the last 10 years of war is whether we have made the right choice by giving the president so much power to appoint governors. it would be as if president obama had bennett right to -- had the right to appoint all- american governors, rather than them being elected by their states. many believe we would see better performance by thethe question o governors if they were held accountable by the people in their provinces and districts.

the international community did not make that choice when it was setting up the afghan constitution. many people wonder if that was an opportunity missed to provide less opportunity for corruption and more responsive and transparent government in afghanistan host: there have been complaints in the past from the guard at -- the karzai government about diplomatic channels from the united states. and reports are that he will be complaining as well this time to washington that he talked to officials there, but little progress is made. who is he talking to? what is the line of communication? guest: we have an ambassador in afghanistan, and currently general john island -- john allen. it is not intuitive that someone would feel sorry for president karzai, but he has had 10 u.s. commanders over the 10 years of war there. he has not had a chance to

establish a long-term relationship and he has not had a single american contact with whom to deal. plus, he has ambassadors from the rest of the world to deal with, all of whom feel they have some say over what should happen in afghanistan. president karzai has a never- ending and very wide cast of international actors with whom to deal. and they rotate very often. it would be easier for him, certainly, and perhaps more productive for the u.s., were we to have lager postings of our ambassadors and senior generals into that country -- long your postings of our ambassadors and your generals into that country. host: given all of the complaints, what leverage does he have with the u.s.? guest: he has the leverage of the week, quite frankly. he knows it is important to the united states that afghanistan does not again dissolve into a

place of warlords were the taliban can regain control. it is important that some degree of stability and structure remain in afghanistan so we can continue to conduct our troops there and continue to conduct special operations and intelligence gathering. president karzai wants a long- term relationship and it wants stability in the country. we have many of the same long- term goals. there is some degree of conflict of interest, but it is not absolute. -- confluence of interest, but it is not absolute. host: steve, republican collar. caller: i would like to know what countries have recently gone oil contracts over this whole thing. -- recently gotten oil contracts over this whole thing. guest: there is not a lot of oil in afghanistan.

there are huge mineral rights, which have been purchased to great extent by china. the oil in iraq has been purchased by a number of countries. they have purchased the rights to extract and sell that oil. the iraqi industries on an upswing right now, and it is one of the reasons that the world prices have stabilized, and some suspect may even go down. the united states did not do a particularly good job of getting its share of that business for a number of reasons. and certainly, in afghanistan, the united states is not benefiting economically from the investment is making. it is likely that china will be the beneficiary long term of the u.s. affected afghanistan if afghanistan does stabilize because of the mineral resources there. for those who suspect that we

conduct wars for economic interests, we're not that good. did not turn out that we -- it did not turn out that way. host: next caller, you are on the air. caller: i would like to identify some of the issues that the gentleman is talking about. i work in afghanistan since 2002. i know what the problems are. sometimes people like this gentleman who come as an expert and submit the facts. the fact of the matter is proper -- the fact of the matter is, the biggest problem is the government. the entire world went there with their blood and treasure and, unfortunately, it was mismanaged by the government. even when you're talking about corruption, i work on corruption. there is a proposal which is on the table of what is needed --

what needs to be done in order to prevent corruption. the biggest problem right now is that we need a legitimate government. we need a government -- especially when president obama indicated that we are leaving afghanistan responsibly. to me, responsibly means we hold the next collection -- the next election and make sure it is fair and transparent. other than that, we won militarily in afghanistan, but we lost politically. host: before we go and before mr. nagl response to your comments, what are you doing there? who do you work for? what kind of job is it? how did you get it? caller: i volunteered to go to

afghanistan in 2002 to help the afghan government, as well as the united states government. i get engaged in many projects. i also worked as an adviser to our south -- to isaf. i was one of dupnik people who worked on the white papers. we looked at it, -- i was one of those who worked on the white papers. we looked at it and analyze it and came up with recommendations. it is not just the international committee who created corruption. it is the government, because the structure of the society and the people he is surrounded himself with our -- are very irresponsible and they only care are how to get rich quick. notand they're rewarding thoseo

gave the bad name to the private sector. even the government. the united states has been insulted with all of its building -- billions of dollars and its blood, they have never been insulted so much in any other part of the world than they have been in afghanistan. host: are you're originally from that country? caller: yes, i am originally from that country and i'm an engineer. i have been working there since 2002. host: can you describe for americans how money is exchanged in afghanistan? caller: money to exchange, or money spent? host: both, or either. caller: the billions of dollars that went there, i think i have

spoken about this issue to the people who create a monopoly, and create it around the americans and the embassy. there are a group of people that if you look at them, somehow they are related to this dynasty of karzai, or some other groups. it is a very small group of people. that is what we are trying to putting control of all honest and decent and ordinary afghans. it is impossible to do that. host: we got your point. guest: i have read the white papers. a friend of mine who is an army to star general ran an anti- corruption task force in afghanistan -- two-star general ran an anti- corruption task force in

afghanistan. he is certainly correct that the afghan government has been, and some of the afghan government have been some of the bigger problems that we have faced, not just the taliban in afghanistan and the remnants of al qaeda. this is always the case when you're fighting in insurgency. if the government were honest and capable, it is much less likely that there would be an insurgency against it. his concerns are spot-on. president karzai has reasonably elected -- that does have a lot of reaction by the afghan people. the transition to a new government in afghanistan is. to be incredibly important. one of the things i'm concerned about is that for all of president karzai's flaws, it is not clear that anybody else in

afghanistan could do better working more support from the afghan people. it is an enormously fractious bunch. afghanistan facing a big drawdown of u.s. troops, more responsibility on afghan security forces, a big drawdown of aid from the international committee and election in 2014 to all those things are important as president karzai try to lock down what the american assistance package is going to look like. host: and the meeting he is referring to is afghan president karzai coming to washington d.c. to meet with our president on friday. next caller. caller: i am a veteran of operation enduring freedom. i was part of the second airborne. i was there for a year. in response to what your guest had spoken about, about the

transition of funds that karzai is asking for from american -- let contractors directly into the afghan government -- from the american lead contractors directly into the afghan government, my concern is that i do not know why we would believe this man to be responsible stewards of american taxpayer dollars. at no point, has he shown to be responsible in that kind of charge. he took his hat rather out of obscurity from chicago restaurant and bar him to afghanistan -- brought him to afghanistan when he came back into power in late 2001. guest: first, thanks for your service in afghanistan with the 82nd airborne. certainly, president karzai has displayed a degree of nepotism. i think that for the few

countries in the world can claim to be free of that, including this one. i think president karzai needed to have people around him he could trust and has continued to do so. by no means am i saying that president karzai is a paragon of virtue -- of virtue. i'm saying he is the afghan government we have to work with through 2014. it is not at all clear to me who -- that whoever follows him will be easier to work with, let's correct, or more transparent and open -- less corrupt or more transparent and open. we would not necessarily choose president karzai as our partner at this point, but he is the one we got. host: libya, in the and in color. -- independent caller.

caller: i want to point out a couple of things. first, i think we should never turn the monies recovered to the afghan government. we should be able to follow the money at all times. the reason 70% of the people are for karzai is because they are getting our money. take that money away, they will turn around and go back to whoever will help them. guest: that is certainly true. i do not know if you have seen the movie "lincoln" yet, but i commend it to you. it shows his patronage to former members of congress for getting those against slavery. there is a long history of patronage to secure loyalty. as corrupt as afghanistan is, it is not at all clear to me that president karzai has distributed

the dollars out to 70% of the population. it is clear and pretty undeniable that life in afghanistan is getting better. a much higher percentage of the afghan people believe things are moving in the right direction in their country. because afghanistan is coming from such a low base, 20 years or more of war, but over the last 10 years it has gone from a country that has less than 1000 land line telephones to a country that has 15 million cellphone spirit afghanistan is moving -- 15 billion cell phones. afghanistan is moving rapidly -- 15 million cell phones. afghanistan is moving rapidly into the 21st century. we need to think of what we want to accomplish with those dollars, but the american public does have an interest in the stability of afghanistan under president karzai and under his

successor. it is my hope that we will be able to use those dollars as leverage to try to move afghanistan to some degree in some -- in the direction we want it prepared -- in the direction we want it. host: next caller. caller: good morning. in light of the chinese securing mineral rights in afghanistan, i do not recall them taking a war machine over there in order to do so. did they perhaps use soft power in this? i think we need to find out more. the general population needs to find out more about south are and its use in modern politics. -- about soft power and its use in modern politics. another question for you would be, i've been looking up your organization on wikipedia and there's nothing regarding funding. who funds you?

guest: let me first say that soft power is an important concept, and increasingly important concept in american diplomacy. a professor at harvard has a book by that title and i do think that the chinese are effectively demonstrating the use of soft power in africa, in afghanistan, throughout much of asia. and in south america, around much of the globe. they are found ways to use their economic resources to further their political and security objectives. in the case of the mineral rights inside afghanistan, quite frankly, the united states did not bid for those. american companies were not particularly interested in them in a landlocked country. china is very near by and able to carry those minerals out on railroad tracks, which they will build. china did not contribute

security forces and has not continued to contribute security forces to afghanistan. one of the big questions over the twins -- the next 20 years will be how we help china become a responsible member of the international community. cragg frankly, they are not there yet. -- quite frankly, they are not there yet. right now, i am an employee of the u.s. naval academy. i teach there. our funding sources are all listed cnas.org . "is." your -- under "us." you're welcome to take a look. host: next caller, republican caller.

fromr: i'm originally afghanistan. host: you've got to turn your television down. you're getting feedback through your television. it is confusing you. i'm born to put you on hold. let's go to -- i'm going to put you on hold. let's go to chris in illinois. caller: earlier, i heard the colonel talking about how the taliban is a threat, and so is al qaeda, and obviously, they are. but isn't that a smaller version of the bigger picture in regard to the merger -- the image you -- the new hygiene and how the cia trained them? and is in this black? and where we continuing funding for these types -- and isn't this a blow back?

and where we continuing to fund these types of organizations? guest: the u.s. in the 1980's funded the merger had been -- the mujahedin. this story is told in the book "below back" as well as in the movie charlie wilson's war. in the movie, charlie wilson pleaded for continued american assistance to afghanistan, having successfully toppled the soviet union, having brought some degree of freedom to afghanistan. charlie wilson said that we can bring a government that will meet our responsibility to the

afghan people for pennies on the dollar. we feel to do so. the taliban came to power and offered a home to al qaeda and the results were not in the american interests. it is worth remembering that history as we think about what is again going to be a pennies on the dollar investment for security and economic development. host: here is a tweet. is there a lesson to be learned from the soviet invasion of afghanistan? is that what you're saying? guest: there are many lessons to be learned from the soviet invasion of afghanistan. the soviets conducted counterinsurgency very poorly in afghanistan. they intentionally targeted civilians. they used very brutal tactics. they did not gain the support of the afghan people. as we have conducted our own counterinsurgency campaign, we have tried to learn from those losses. i think we have done infinitely better than the soviet union. but the lesson that is most

relevant now is one at the end of charlie wilson's war. a small investment of continued support after the war tapers down can be a stitch in time that saved nine, can be an investment that saves the long- term investment -- security interests of america. host: here's a tweet. guest: almost certainly. host: that will still be our biggest investment? guest: no, i'm sorry. we will still be the biggest investor in afghanistan, but we will have much bigger investments in egypt and other places. afghanistan is a place would -- where we will continue to send economic assistance in the low billions of dollars, security assistance in the low billions of dollars. the security existence cannot

predict two or three bases where we can assist the afghan government and afghan security forces for the long term. but it will no longer be the place in the world where we must invest. host: we will go back to virginia. republican caller there. caller: hello to you. i'm originally from afghanistan. i just moved into the united states recently. i was there during the mujahedin time and the taliban time and also with the karzai administration. i came to the d.c. area in 2008. i saw what has happened back then and what has happened recently. in 2009, i went back overseas on the planet with the u.s. military as a linguistic and

cultural -- on the planet with the u.s. military as a link with ann coulter advisor. i was with the army and then with the marines -- as a cultural adviser. i was with the army and then with the marines. i saw how the u.s. is doing in afghanistan and what is going on. many americans feel we are wasting time there and spending a lot of money there and doing this and that. my answer to those americans is that we are not wasting time. america is not wasting time. yes, we are spending a lot of tax money there, but i think it is worth it. let's not just watch the tv and have a negative side. let's have the outcome -- let's see the outcome in afghanistan. host: why is it worth it? caller: i spent time in afghanistan during the mujahedin time and the taliban time.

i had nothing coming from those two regimes. i saw there--- theur negative points. i graduated high school in 2003. in 2004, i started working as an interpreter. i saw every second of the transition been made. security is not much better, but it is getting toward that. the education has gone higher. the economic situation is building every day. host: let me get your take on this week from one of our viewers. -- this week from one of our viewers. what is your take on karzai and his government? caller: people think that karzai

is not a great president. but i also have my personal view on that. i do not know him personally. he is now my brother or anything, but he has done so much for the afghan country and for the afghans. many people cannot see the truth. afghanistan is not an easy country to deal with. the afghans, they were raised wild card they have been in the war not just for 35 years. afghanistan has been at war for centuries. it is really hard for one person to control the whole country in 10 years. he has done so much. people are trying to close their eyes from reality. i would say that i am strongly against those people. karzai has done so much for the people and so much for his country. i really admire his administration -- maybe not his administration,

but his personal thoughts and his strong work for the country and the afghans. the real problem in afghanistan is not just karzai, but working for karzai. they are not honest. they're very focused on their personal gain, their pockets. they're just thinking the government will collapse and the next minute and we have to get as much as we can and will be out of the country immediately. host: a lot to chew on there. thank you. guest: first, let me thank him. linguists are worth their weight in gold. in iraq, that was the most presses -- precious asset i have. people like him who believe in their country and have worked to help make their country stronger should be commended for their service. i am struck as we sit here next to the u.s. capitol and the statue of ulysses s. grant just over the horizon, i am reminded

of president grant when i think about karzai. grant, a man of the incredible personal integrity, as i would think most would say karzai is. but grant had administration that is very corrupt. -- was very corrupt. i think that is a good example for us to think about. president karzai has not always had the best choice in friends, but he is also conducting a very delicate balancing act among a team of rivals, in many cases, with blood on their hands. host: we should talk about the nominations that president obama has made or will make which respect to these relations. with respect to john kerry, chairman of the foreign relations committee. they are no strangers. guest: president karzai -- particularly upset with the united states over the elections of 2009, significant --

president karzai was particularly upset with the united states over the election of 2009. significant ballot stuffing. he did not need to cheat, but it certainly looks as if he did. and the united states wanted them to go to a runoff. and john kerry, as senate foreign relations committee chairman, he went there and had 300 cups of tea with present karzai and got him to agree to move forward with the democratic process with some degree of transparency. and john kerry's servers as a troubleshooter for the administration with afghanistan and pakistan and around the globe is one of the reasons the president has called on him to be secretary of state. i have testified before john kerry before the senate for relations committee. he understands the problems he will have to deal with and is well suited to take them on. host: john kerry as secretary of defense. john brennan as the head of the

cia. guest: it is important, i think, to -- when we talk about president karzai and the personal relationships he has with his cabinet officers and people he counts on to do things for him, in the same way, president obama needs to rapidly can trust to do things for him. chalk -- hagel in vietnam, a wounded in listed man, himself a very cautious about the use of force in international politics. he will be exerting, i think, downward pressure on the american commitment to afghanistan in terms of troops. but i think he will understand and support the importance of financial. host: john brennan, really quick. guest: the architect of the drug wars inside afghanistan and

pakistan, which are likely to continue and will put pressure on both the taliban and al qaeda. i think they're worth the costs. host: them get to this tweet. guest: no way. they would not have the interest or the ability to do what needs to be done. host: thank you for talking to our viewers. we appreciate your time. and thanks to all of our viewers. we'll be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >>